General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: 68EZPkns on July 15, 2016, 01:06:55 PM
Title: Control of a destroyer
Post by: 68EZPkns on July 15, 2016, 01:06:55 PM
The new Fletcher class destroyer looks great,just wish we could control one like a PT boat. And is there any plans to add LST's so we can do amphib landings? Would also like to see the Atlanta class light cruiser. Was a AAA cruiser with lots of rapid fire 5 inchers.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: BowHTR on July 15, 2016, 01:29:59 PM
Have you sen the new Iowa class?
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Skyguns MKII on July 18, 2016, 07:39:47 PM
Sumner class :noid
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Ramesis on July 19, 2016, 03:38:23 PM
Jeez... that is all the game needs.. some one grabbing a destroyer (a shade for example) and removing it from what it was intended to do... picket around a CV Ram :bhead
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Hungry on July 19, 2016, 04:15:04 PM
Jeez... that is all the game needs.. some one grabbing a destroyer (a shade for example) and removing it from what it was intended to do... picket around a CV Ram :bhead
A destroyer vs destroyer battle wouldn't be cool and add to the game? you cant stop the goofballs but you cant let them stop progress either.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: LCADolby on July 20, 2016, 04:48:13 AM
I like the idea, but not from a CV group. Perhaps from a Port you could go out to sea in it. Additionally this could be with other ships and subs/U-boats.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Volron on July 20, 2016, 07:11:58 AM
Agreed. The DD shouldn't come from one of the TG ships. Spawning one in at the TG, maybe. Can add a "hanger" at ports for DD spawning, only in this case it's a dry dock. :headscratch:
Jeez... that is all the game needs.. some one grabbing a destroyer (a shade for example) and removing it from what it was intended to do... picket around a CV Ram :bhead
IF they were to allow for it (which I very much doubt), just make it to where it will announce when a player takes a DD from the TG's set, much like how it's announced when someone changes a TG's course.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: KiLrGrampa on July 20, 2016, 12:23:05 PM
:aok Yes! What Volron said!
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: EskimoJoe on July 20, 2016, 01:07:35 PM
Agreed. The DD shouldn't come from one of the TG ships. Spawning one in at the TG, maybe. Can add a "hanger" at ports for DD spawning, only in this case it's a dry dock. :headscratch:
IF they were to allow for it (which I very much doubt), just make it to where it will announce when a player takes a DD from the TG's set, much like how it's announced when someone changes a TG's course.
I feel like if we have DD's guarding the fleet, then keep them there. Maybe smaller ships for players, up to frigates or something. I feel like DDs manned by a crew as they are are good, but if we're going to give players the sole ability to spawn ships and single-crew them, they should be smaller ships that need to coordinate with other players to take down a fleet.
My .02
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Randall172 on July 20, 2016, 01:31:23 PM
When are we gonna get the Yamato Battleships
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Hungry on July 20, 2016, 05:31:08 PM
lol always conditions, seems like around here 2 cents is more like $100.00, break out some destroyers, let us get a few folks to man the guns and let us shoot at each other swerving around, or let us attack and or defend the carrier.
Paralysis by analysis is what's its really called no wonder the game takes so long to modernize.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: bustr on July 20, 2016, 05:57:39 PM
While testing the Iowa class battleship it candle sticked exactly like the CV does. I've incorporated one into the three task forces in my AH3 gunnery training terrain. The main gun battery will take down the CV in three salvos while the reload time is about 30 seconds.
I suspect when it is released in it's finished presentation with AH3 live, I will have to remove it from the three CV task forces and update the terrain with one or two battleship task forces. I'm just guessing here because the battleship candle sticked exactly like the CV.
The destroyers look spiffy along side the new updated CV and battleship skins.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: EskimoJoe on July 21, 2016, 05:02:32 AM
The players had no part in the death of Air Warrior.
While mostly true, there was an underlying current of unrest because the staff started to change flight models based on popular objection, rather than on flight test data. The P-47 comes to mind. That may be what EskimoJoe's thinking of. I was worried that the same thing was happening here when the Brewster model was "adjusted" based on community insistence, although I think people did come up with some data to support the changes.
- oldman
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Hungry on July 21, 2016, 08:28:15 AM
If the game was updated by what the players wanted, it would be dead like Air Warrior 20 years ago.
I was actually referring as much to the current state of opinions shown on this board as anything, no consensus, its obvious some would still be playing AH1 if they had their way.
Growth through innovation, growth through modernization, growth through product development. The planes must stay true to their real life counterparts or at least as much as possible, that is the charm of AH. However gameplay is another matter, many have said its stale, but even the slightest mention of change is met with this endless point - counterpoint beat down. I truly feel for HT from a business standpoint.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Mister Fork on July 21, 2016, 10:07:33 AM
I've been advocating for a player-controlled Destroyers for 10 years in Aces High. :x
It would be a game-changer for sure - and if done well, it would open up the game to include the navy types who would then also love our CV's, Battleships, and then for them to hop into the Corsair's, Zekes, Zero's, Hellcats, and other Navy planes. I think it would completely revive our shrinking player base... :old:
...but WTF do I know about MMO? :airplane:
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Hungry on July 21, 2016, 11:06:12 AM
I've been advocating for a player-controlled Destroyers for 10 years in Aces High. :x
It would be a game-changer for sure - and if done well, it would open up the game to include the navy types who would then also love our CV's, Battleships, and then for them to hop into the Corsair's, Zekes, Zero's, Hellcats, and other Navy planes. I think it would completely revive our shrinking player base... :old:
...but WTF do I know about MMO? :airplane:
Agreed 100% and that would separate us from the rest, a Naval component with a highly accurate Air component!!!
ps where does HT find the Naval component expertise?
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Wiley on July 21, 2016, 11:40:22 AM
Why does the game have to be everything to everyone? Why does it need yet another thing to keep people out of the air? There are good, focused boat and submarine games. Why not play them? There are good, focused tank games. Why not play them? There are good, focused FPS games. Why not play them?
Why does everything have to be mashed into one game instead of picking a focus and delivering a superior experience in that aspect?
Minecraft seems popular. They should add some construction and mining aspects to the game. That would bring people in right? Player created housing seems popular in other games. Maybe we should add that too? I just saw a listing for Mechanic Simulator 2016. They should license that and add in Mechanic roles for all the vehicles. That would add to the game I'm sure.
As far as paralysis by analysis, I wouldn't worry too much about it Hungry. Anything on this board that's not from Hitech is pretty much just noise as far as affecting the direction of the game. If he sees an idea he likes, he uses it. If he doesn't like it, he doesn't. Whatever either side of the discussion has to say doesn't amount to much other than possibly fleshing out the idea.
Wiley.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Hungry on July 21, 2016, 12:06:41 PM
Why does the game have to be everything to everyone? Why does it need yet another thing to keep people out of the air? There are good, focused boat and submarine games. Why not play them? There are good, focused tank games. Why not play them? There are good, focused FPS games. Why not play them?
Wiley.
Wiley I understand, the recent posts along these lines has been how to attract new players, this could be a way. Yes until the new crowd gets here it very well would / could detract from the air war, but at some point doesn't the risk if you will need to be taken to grow the crowd and ensure the future for AH? We want them here not in those other games.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: 68EZPkns on July 21, 2016, 12:10:21 PM
I never intended to suggest a destroyer could be taken from a task force, way I imagine it would be spawned from ports only, with several spawns in diff directions out into the middle of the water. And has been suggested before about having diff task forces, a bombardment TF with a BB and Hvy cruisers with DD escort. And a CV TF with a Atlanta class Lt Cruiser and DDs. The bombardment should have spwnable LSTs with limited Gvs,no tigers and whirbs. Just Shermans and M16s,M3s.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Hungry on July 21, 2016, 12:25:02 PM
"In World War II, aircraft carriers were not the only ships to launch and recover aircraft. Cruisers and battleships each carried a few small floatplanes. Most were Curtis SOC Seagulls or Vought OS2U Kingfishers. Curtis SO3C Seamews and SC Seahawks also saw some use in the war"
I hope that's accurate, I can envision a destroyer launching from base (port) with its scout planes up looking for the enemy CV. In turn I can see the destroyer from the CV group breaking off to intercept the incoming destroyer, its own scout planes trying to find the enemy destroyers location
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: 68EZPkns on July 21, 2016, 12:26:17 PM
Why does the game have to be everything to everyone? Why does it need yet another thing to keep people out of the air? There are good, focused boat and submarine games. Why not play them? There are good, focused tank games. Why not play them? There are good, focused FPS games. Why not play them?
Why does everything have to be mashed into one game instead of picking a focus and delivering a superior experience in that aspect?
Minecraft seems popular. They should add some construction and mining aspects to the game. That would bring people in right? Player created housing seems popular in other games. Maybe we should add that too? I just saw a listing for Mechanic Simulator 2016. They should license that and add in Mechanic roles for all the vehicles. That would add to the game I'm sure.
As far as paralysis by analysis, I wouldn't worry too much about it Hungry. Anything on this board that's not from Hitech is pretty much just noise as far as affecting the direction of the game. If he sees an idea he likes, he uses it. If he doesn't like it, he doesn't. Whatever either side of the discussion has to say doesn't amount to much other than possibly fleshing out the idea.
Wiley.
I think your logic is flawed Wiley, do really think that if all Gvs were eliminated from the game that all those players that like to tank would jump in planes? I think most would leave the game for another were they can play tanks. There is nothing about the gound game that keeps those who prefer aircraft from doing what they want to do. Personally I like to do it all.But some players fly very little or not all and some play tanks very little or not at all. Adding another dimension to the game I see as only helping bring in more players.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: 68EZPkns on July 21, 2016, 12:27:36 PM
"In World War II, aircraft carriers were not the only ships to launch and recover aircraft. Cruisers and battleships each carried a few small floatplanes. Most were Curtis SOC Seagulls or Vought OS2U Kingfishers. Curtis SO3C Seamews and SC Seahawks also saw some use in the war"
I hope that's accurate, I can envision a destroyer launching from base (port) with its scout planes up looking for the enemy CV. In turn I can see the destroyer from the CV group breaking off to intercept the incoming destroyer, its own scout planes trying to find the enemy destroyers location
Destroyers never carried any float planes,just not big enough. But cruisers and BBs did and I would love to add those to the game.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Hungry on July 21, 2016, 12:29:30 PM
I think your logic is flawed Wiley, do really think that if all Gvs were eliminated from the game that all those players that like to tank would jump in planes? I think most would leave the game for another were they can play tanks. There is nothing about the gound game that keeps those who prefer aircraft from doing what they want to do. Personally I like to do it all.But some players fly very little or not all and some play tanks very little or not at all. Adding another dimension to the game I see as only helping bring in more players.
Nope. I don't think that at all. They likely would go play a tank game. They also likely would whine a lot less about aircraft bombing them in their tank game. At least here you'd know when you log in that, "Hey. There are only a dozen enemies flying."
The development time that goes toward GVs and boats could've been applied to aircraft related things. The aircraft game would be in a significantly different place from where it is at the moment if the GV and boat stuff wasn't there.
Maybe the game would be dead, but it might also be that a better aircraft experience could have brought in more people as well to fly.
Wiley.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: bustr on July 21, 2016, 02:51:28 PM
CV's are currently floating airfields that drag along 8 inch gun battery's to augment for not having heavy bombers and destroyers as auto ack. The time CV's take to get anywhere with our 25milex25mil sectors is like watching grass grow compared to the numbers of air and ground sorties you can launch to have fun. On some maps you could waste your whole evening in your 1 person controlled destroyer driving around doing nothing. Unless the ports for them are required to be in places that won't survive being owned by the host country an hour after the new map flips.
Then what next? Obviously starting from the port will take all night to hunt for enemy CV and other destroyers. Unless you convince Hitech to make a terrain design requirement that all destroyer ports have up to eight spawns stretching across 10-20 sectors to get your single destroyer near the enemy and vulnerable to any kiddy with a poni and two 1000lb bombs. Or require ship combat regions with spawns just outside of them which will be vulnerable to some bored bomber driver circling the area all night waiting for task forces and single driver destroyers to spawn in.
One destroyer acting like a lone wolf is also open for abuse against fields, more likely self inflicted by the shore battery. So then what again, a squadron of destroyers from each destroyer port driven by a single player? And the game world of warships, is that another game with a very tiny arena to force you into combat? We don't have a very tiny arenas, where as some of our competitors arenas will fit into one of our sectors.
How do you account for the vast distances of our world coupled with the time to get anywhere in something as slow as your own personal destroyer? And not get towered by some bored kiddy with two 1000lb bombs while you try to get anywhere. Even if you get him, he's screaming on country about a lone destroyer for the picking. What is a lone destroyer to all the expert CV killers our game has nurtured? How long do you survive in a lone PT with them around?
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Hungry on July 21, 2016, 03:08:06 PM
Bustr
Great idea, Destroyer ports, launching and destroying, PT's that can actually sink something with those torps, destroyer hunters from the air, thanks I was wondering about that, adds even more to the game, slow down though let HT get 3 finished first
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Sabre on July 21, 2016, 03:28:22 PM
While the air component was and will continue to be the focus of AH, Dale planned from the beginning to add GVs, along with an FPS soldier element and submarines. The addition of the later would necessitate the addition of ASW elements, and while he never told me explicitly that this would include player-controlled surface combatants, it seemed to me to be implied in his comments about this. Bustr's arguments are not show-stoppers, but rather design challenges. As for the question of why there should be non-aircraft options at all, when there are not enough players at present, that's an easy one. I personally barely have time for AH; I don't want to spend time trying to master the mechanics of another game. So, if I'm in AH and having no luck AvA, I'll switch to GVs for a nice change. Keeps the game fresh for me. Not only that, but AvA was but a fraction of what air power did during WWII. Ground attack, CAS, supply interdiction were all part of the mix, and each presents it's own challenges. I want more options, not less, when I invest in a game as I have in AH.
As for player-controlled DDs, I'm not fundamentally against the idea. As with any new component under consideration, it depends on how it is added. Some may remember this, but I used to be part of the events team (one of the original in AH, as it happens). One of the single-frame scenarios I designed was an all-surface ship battle, using the old Philippines map. I set it up so there were 8 cruisers, 4 versus 4, along with PT boats available for spawn and a couple scout planes for each side. The battle lasted close to two hours and was great fun. Having player-controlled DDs would allow similar action. Give the "skipper" direct control of the wheel and throttle, instead of the clunky course plotting we use now, would make them much harder for the lone-wolf pilots to kill. Providing the ability to take on extra gunners to man the main guns and to augment auto-ack (the smaller calibre AA could be auto-ack), and this would be a blast!
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: bustr on July 21, 2016, 04:39:17 PM
Destroyers are with the CV task group for historical reasons and for mutual defense. Everything in this game like a task group, PT, LVT or tigerII is dictated to their effectiveness by time, distance, and everything from 30cal to 1000lb bombs.
We all know how long lone CV, Cruisers, destroyers, PT, LVT, and tanks last after some kiddi with 1000lb bombs finds them. We also know because of the scale of our game world the PT, LVT, and tank has to be spawned to it's combat area which is a very tiny operational space, often less than 2x2 miles versus the ability of those conveyances to get there in one evening directly from another base. Time, distance, and 1000lb bombs.
Where do you want to spawn a single destroyer to? Airplanes with bombs will take out a single destroyer as so cruiser 8in batteries out side of the max range of 5in and torpedoes. Massed 5in from the task force will take out a single destroyer. And shore batteries will, just like taking out PT, LVT and even tanks. Tanks have a few advantages for hiding up to a point that sea craft do not.
It's not like you don't have destroyers in the game with guns you can man. You will get an entirely new battleship object in AH3 with 16in guns that good chances will be the heart of it's own task group with destroyers. I've tested the salvo and it only takes three to sink a carrier with a longer reach than the 8in.
How are you going to bring a single destroyer near anything to fight and even survive against in a world that would swallow up the standard arenas of our competitors? Instead of punting it onto Hitech at this point, use the game functions as we are familiar with them to conceptualize this outside of a member of a task force. Where do you want to spawn a single destroyer to that it won't get sunk after it is located? This game is not world of warships protected from planes, it is Aces High an air combat game with task force sinking experts once they are located.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Mister Fork on July 21, 2016, 04:46:04 PM
As for player-controlled DDs, I'm not fundamentally against the idea. As with any new component under consideration, it depends on how it is added. Some may remember this, but I used to be part of the events team (one of the original in AH, as it happens). One of the single-frame scenarios I designed was an all-surface ship battle, using the old Philippines map. I set it up so there were 8 cruisers, 4 versus 4, along with PT boats available for spawn and a couple scout planes for each side. The battle lasted close to two hours and was great fun. Having player-controlled DDs would allow similar action. Give the "skipper" direct control of the wheel and throttle, instead of the clunky course plotting we use now, would make them much harder for the lone-wolf pilots to kill. Providing the ability to take on extra gunners to man the main guns and to augment auto-ack (the smaller calibre AA could be auto-ack), and this would be a blast!
Sabre - that is exactly how I envisioned it being implemented. The spawn points would be no different that PT boats - and for scenario based events, having player controlled destroyers completely opens up the game to new possibilities. Why shouldn't you be able to spawn a destroyer from a CV - or peel one off from the CV if you want to take control of it...
With the decent accuracy of the tank modelling we have now, why not add another element to the gameplay? Destroyers open up something no one else has done well in a MMO. And if HTC continues down the path of their development plans, this also allows the addition of subs, VLS's (which become vehicle spawn-points when deployed/landed), etc etc?
I think it would be a very smart and strategic move to add player-Captain'ed Destroyers.
Bustr- what's your big idea to improve the game? I see nothing but complaints and the fact you don't like it for this reason or that. Improve the idea! You've got a brain - and great ideas...we've seen it. And the fact you see all the possible limits on how it won't work, also means you're thinking on how it 'should' work...
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: guncrasher on July 21, 2016, 05:00:46 PM
mister fork, you ever heard the expression "safety in numbers" or something like that? you take the fleet away from the cv and they will all die easier than it is now.
a single destroyer will be easy to kill using mg's from a couple of planes. a fleet can be destroyed but it takes some work and a lot more firepower.
think the idea needs to research all the if's instead of "it would be cool to control a destroyer away from the fleet.".
semp
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: bustr on July 21, 2016, 05:19:09 PM
How do you not get sunk in a solo destroyer faster than in a task group in the scale of the world we play in? The scale of the world and the power of aircraft dictate how long single sea craft survive against the fun factor and any effective combat outcome. The scale of the task group is proportional to the scale of the world for survive ability and effective combat outcomes. With a task group have many ships to be sunk and gun potions to be destroyed before the fun factor of a group of players is diminished. The PT as an asset is not expected to survive very long as is demonstrated nightly since it was introduced into this world. And so it only has a single player controlling it and it's weapons. A PBY with bombs would be more effective as a solo conveyance in the scale of our world.
The destroyer's 3D object has been updated to AH3 standards in a giant scale world. There is a new battleship object that is waiting for new players in AH3 scaled to our giant world. A single destroyer or capitol ship needs a very small world that proportionally scales up the effectiveness of it's speed, maneuverability, and maybe it's firepower. And the absence of bored players with pin point accurate 1000lb bombs.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Skyguns MKII on July 21, 2016, 10:33:12 PM
One plane isn't as effective as a squad. One destroyer isnt as effective as a fleet. Personally I see player controlled destroyers by the numbers breaking off and acting as an escort for lvts landing. Or perhaps sailing ahead of the CV route if there is a known carrier in the area. I understand many of you may disagree but I can imagine effectiveness if done properly and in numbers. That way destroyers can do what taffy three was able to instead of being unmanuverable robots. Destroyers are fast and maneuverable and I think the player control option along with numbers would be deadly. Sumner class :noid
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: 68EZPkns on July 22, 2016, 10:28:37 AM
I would go for DE's ,destroyer escorts. They were just smaller versions of DDs, I think they carried 2 5 inchers instead of 5 like the fletcher class. If you read about the battle of Leyte Gulf a handful of them fought off the Japs main force of BBs and H Cruisers that were poised to decimate the landing beach. With help from some jeep carriers. Problem was all the air craft had were HE bombs as they were there for ground support at the landing. Japs almost pulled it off but got cold feet thinking they were fighting a much bigger force, so they turned tail.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: bustr on July 22, 2016, 11:34:42 AM
One plane isn't as effective as a squad. One destroyer isnt as effective as a fleet. Personally I see player controlled destroyers by the numbers breaking off and acting as an escort for lvts landing. Or perhaps sailing ahead of the CV route if there is a known carrier in the area. I understand many of you may disagree but I can imagine effectiveness if done properly and in numbers. That way destroyers can do what taffy three was able to instead of being unmanuverable robots. Destroyers are fast and maneuverable and I think the player control option along with numbers would be deadly. Sumner class :noid
How our world is scaled, individual destroyers would die as quickly as individual PT in your scenario. The close packed task force is configured to survive in our world. The concept of fast on water in our world versus airplanes is not possible. Fast in a gaming world for a destroyer is only possible in a game that is scaled to a fraction of a single sector of our vast world and has only ships to contend with. I doubt Hitech would allow destroyers to re-spawn like PT back into a local base attack which would destabilize the game. "Properly in numbers" for the giant scale of our aircraft with 1000lb bombs centric world, is ship groups (task force) setup for mutual support tied to long land base style re-spawns.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Hungry on July 22, 2016, 11:43:59 AM
How our world is scaled, individual destroyers would die as quickly as individual PT in your scenario. The close packed task force is configured to survive in our world. The concept of fast on water in our world versus airplanes is not possible. Fast in a gaming world for a destroyer is only possible in a game that is scaled to a fraction of a single sector of our vast world and has only ships to contend with. I doubt Hitech would allow destroyers to re-spawn like PT back into a local base attack which would destabilize the game. "Properly in numbers" for the giant scale of our aircraft with 1000lb bombs centric world, is ship groups (task force) setup for mutual support tied to long land base style re-spawns.
Whose to say that as multiple bombers are taken up by multiple players, a Destroyer group couldn't be formed as a "mission" by multiple players? of course the game / ports would have to be configured in a way that this would be possible for the multi destroyer group to form up
If its "code" feasible why limit the possibility's for more depth / fun to the game?
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: bustr on July 22, 2016, 12:14:19 PM
It's not code, it's a single destroyer in the scale of this world is just a bigger PT boat that will get fragged as soon as the first player with bombs finds it. It will get nowhere in our gigantic world any faster than our CV groups do. And while it's getting there, some kiddy with bombs will sink it.
Player missions of a group of destroyers. There you have a code perspective that it would be easier for Hitech to introduce a destroyer task force object which would be scaled to this world and have the mutual air defense ability of CV task forces. How much effect an all destroyer task force would have against the new battleship task force or, the CV task force the way our world works is questionable. And there is the ever present player with 1000lb bombs who will make that task force a moot thing.
A destroyer task group object will be used to super saturate the area a CV task group is attacking an airfield with ack, to deny the players on the other side the fun of fighting the players from the CV group. You see this when two and even three CV groups are brought together next to an airfield.
We also know our ship to ship 8 inch are almost lazer guided. If I'm not mistaken, when I tested the new battleship, one 16in salvo sank the destroyers while three sank the CV.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Hungry on July 22, 2016, 12:42:32 PM
Fletcher Class
Known at first as “US Destroyer No. 445” for the hull number of the lead ship, the design incorporated ten torpedo tubes in two quintuple centerline mounts plus five 5-inch/38 caliber dual purpose guns, anti-aircraft weapons and depth charges.
I still think a few of these could hold their own long enough to make it fun,
Bustr, I don't always like your answers but I always appreciate your thoughtfulness of the game and I'll leave you with this I didn't read it as George Bernard Shaw but I heard it in the speech (unfortunately not live)
"Some people see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say, why not?"
its sort of stuck with me my whole life and in some ways I attribute it to my success in life.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Mister Fork on July 22, 2016, 12:47:31 PM
Bustr - what then would work for player controlled Destroyers if it were introduced? Cause all you've done coming in here is but down the idea because "YOU" don't like it.
It would work. Really really well.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: bustr on July 22, 2016, 05:39:14 PM
You don't see the canvas that our game plays on and why the CV has a task force.
You see a canvas from another game that was shrunk down to give the deception that a single destroyer is faster than it is and inside of the limited battle time clock more effective than it really is. Other games don't have weenies with 1000lb bombs putting carriers and CV on the bottom with lazer guided accuracy anytime they see one. Combined with a vast world that their battle arena would be a pinpoint in.
A destroyer to survive for very long would need it's own group which wouldn't survive very long if the destroyers were the only target. The guns are ineffectual to taking a field, or quickly defeating a cruiser, battle ship, CV, shore battery or plane. Battleships, Cruisers and planes have longer arms than the torpedo's on a destroyer could be effectively aimed. Knowing that allowing destroyers to pass through a CV group the way we do now with remnants meant close range torps, the destroyers would become a primary target and eliminated off the bat. A destroyer group would quickly be coupled with a CV group to increase the auto ack for sissies to hide in instead of fight.
As is, against the canvas of the AH world, they are best utilized where they are and will survive the longest providing a support service for the CV. Generally, once it's only the destroyers left of a task force, they are ineffectual and quickly put on the bottom if anyone really wants to expend the effort.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Hungry on July 22, 2016, 07:15:35 PM
A thousand replies have rolled through my head, 1000 more would fall on deaf ears, a thousand more will not be said, as time will judge the years
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Oldman731 on July 22, 2016, 10:27:53 PM
You don't see the canvas that our game plays on and why the CV has a task force.
Please excuse Fork. He is an Epsilon-minus semi-moron, who of course cannot grasp the overall concepts of this game. No matter how many years he spends here, no matter how much time he has devoted as a staff member, he simply is incapable of understanding the basic functions of tactics and strategy, not to mention how things like boats could work in this game. I apologize on his behalf, and I will try to ensure that his wife gives him his shot before she lets him near the computer from now on.
- oldman
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Hungry on July 23, 2016, 08:25:18 AM
last one,
it could have been a destroyer, a bicycle with 50 cals on it, skateboards that carry troops, or jeeps with wings, the goal was to enhance the game and attract new players, particularly the sea battles, all we heard was were idiots and no it cant be done, a simple acknowledgment that enhancing the Sea portion of the game may be helpful to attracting new players and should be looked into would have sufficed
I get the feeling that there's a hierarchy at work here that wants the game just how they want it and on their terms for the future. so I've seen the light and enough said good luck
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: bustr on July 23, 2016, 03:57:37 PM
It's not, no it can't be done.
You are not asking yourselves, then answering. Why Hitech chose to present capitol ships and their escorts as movable equivalents of airfields with AI flak batteries, in a giant scale world where a CV group can take 12-24 hours to steam from one corner to another if it doesn't meet a bored kiddy with 1000lb bombs. If tanks didn't have spawns they would be useless because of the scale of our world. The destroyer would still travel at the same speed as the destroyers in the task group object to get anywhere slowly.
Where will you go anytime inside of two hours and not get sunk by a bored kiddy with two 1000lb bombs? What will you shoot at on land with a 5inch round that won't get you sunk by a kiddy with 1000lb bombs a few minutes later in response to the base flashing?
All of your emotional we want this so stop standing in our way aside. You have not defined this world as it works and why ships are presented the way they are. Then how this world has to be changed to make a single destroyer nothing more than a bored kiddy target to practice dropping bombs on. Otherwise as all of you always do, you punt in this crunch that Hitech has to make it work and call others haters who asked you to go through this process.
So maybe hundreds of destroyer spawns points all over the map. Then you could have squads grief fields by swamping their waters repeatedly with destroyers like you already do with PTs? Time warp capability, then pick a place on the map with your mouse and appear there in 10 seconds or suddenly run from a bored kiddy with 1000lb bombs.
Or maybe add two additional destroyers to the task force object. They can individually maneuver inside of an extended circle to the line of travel of the task force object, while still tethered to the task force's main course. Either adjunct to an individual taking control of the task force or as two individual player commanders. But, then how do you choose who gets to do that and not have vulgar pissing matches on range like we do over control of the CV when getting bounced from your captain seat? Especially while you are deep in your master plan of maritime genius. With CV task groups a single captain however imperfect is less of a social problem than a single player commander for each ship in the task force in our gigantic world. That old imagery of many arrows together cannot be broken over your knee equivalent to that bored kiddy with 1000lb bombs getting your lone single captained ship.
I know, it's Hitech's problem to make it work, and yours to tell everyone else they are haters for standing in the way of your progress.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Volron on July 23, 2016, 05:43:18 PM
HiTech intends to add submarines into the game. And I've yet to see him state otherwise.
How are you going to explain that one away? :headscratch:
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: bustr on July 23, 2016, 06:59:28 PM
I don't need to and I'm not explaining away anything. You gents are unwilling to get your hands dirty with how this world functions and why we are presented objects in the way they have been unchanged in their function for almost 15 years. None of you will expose yourselves to telling Hitech he needs to change the codeing fabric of this world to make what you want work the way you think you want it handed to you.
So far your only answer is sticking your fingers in your ears and punting it all to Hitech by omission of any answer.
I'm answering with 15 years of experience in our game. An individual destroyer will get sunk on sight unless Hitech recreates this world to favor individual destroyers exposed in open water to any kiddy with 1000lb bombs. And we see kiddy's with P51's and two 1000lb bombs take out the cruiser ad nauseum day after day while it's supposed to be protected by destroyers. So unless he rewrites this world to favor a single destroyer in open water, then he has to make sinking destroyers in the CV group almost impossible which would make the cruiser and CV indestructible. And this kind of an imbalance will help new customers want to stay with our game then?
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Latrobe on July 23, 2016, 07:05:14 PM
Soooooo, I guess we're not getting submarines? :headscratch:
Windows10
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Dragon Tamer on July 23, 2016, 07:21:56 PM
So far your only answer is sticking your fingers in your ears and punting it all to Hitech by omission of any answer.
No, that is what you've been doing. You have been saying that it is an impossibility based solely on your own subjective speculation of the situation.
You claim to be an expert but how can you be an expert on something that has never existed? You don't even know how the aircraft work in another video game, but you try using it to support your unfounded argument. The aircraft in warships are terrifying to everything that floats. Destroyers are not safe, destroyers are also targeted.
You seem to be holding back any forward progress to this game because it is different, and different is bad. If it's new and different then you won't be the self proclaimed expert that you think you are anymore.
You also keep throwing around the word kiddie, but last time I check the only people that played this game were over the age of 40. Do you know something we don't?
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: RagingPineapple on July 23, 2016, 07:30:12 PM
Are you kidding me bustr? First we get aircraft in AH, then we get a still growing and popular selection of ground vehicles to have GV fights with. Is it not logical that sea battles are the next to come? Right now, we have player controlled task forces with limited capabilities and speed limited by the slow aircraft carrier. Sounds like the groundwork for something great to me. Imagine, a raging sea battle between to large task forces, all ships player controlled, with aircraft and anti-air filling the sky above!
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: guncrasher on July 24, 2016, 10:11:37 AM
pineapple imagine a player controlled ship that separates from the task force will get sunk by the first plane with 2 1k lbs bombs that comes along. that ship will lose the aa cover that the task force provides. hell a single set of lancs will sink all the ships one by one if they separate.
you guys think how cool it would be to control and move it away. we are thinking how cool it would be to control and move it away since it's easier to sink.
semp
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Hungry on July 24, 2016, 11:19:25 AM
Sounds like the groundwork for something great to me.
Semp
This is the part that's really being missed
I lied now I'm done, you cant ignore how many people wish that they had never contributed to the "Wish List" (at least one I l know of for sure), read the thread in its entirety,
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Latrobe on July 24, 2016, 11:24:50 AM
pineapple imagine a player controlled ship that separates from the task force will get sunk by the first plane with 2 1k lbs bombs that comes along. that ship will lose the aa cover that the task force provides. hell a single set of lancs will sink all the ships one by one if they separate.
you guys think how cool it would be to control and move it away. we are thinking how cool it would be to control and move it away since it's easier to sink.
semp
Think of the lone tanker who separates himself from the vbase or wirbles at the spawn point. He'll get slaughtered in mere seconds by the first plane with any type of bomb or big enough guns. Imagine the the lone bomber pilot who separates himself from the mass formation or just ups alone to hit a target. He'll be killed in a heart beat by the first fighter that he comes across.
I don't get why people are against player controlled destroyers but A-Ok with player controls gvs, planes, and even PT boats. Add more things to this game and make it great again!
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: guncrasher on July 24, 2016, 03:46:24 PM
Think of the lone tanker who separates himself from the vbase or wirbles at the spawn point. He'll get slaughtered in mere seconds by the first plane with any type of bomb or big enough guns. Imagine the the lone bomber pilot who separates himself from the mass formation or just ups alone to hit a target. He'll be killed in a heart beat by the first fighter that he comes across.
I don't get why people are against player controlled destroyers but A-Ok with player controls gvs, planes, and even PT boats. Add more things to this game and make it great again!
the lone tank is really hard to find as it is, just ask dr7. the lone cruiser can be seen from 10k the moment it fires its weapons. and easy to see if it doesnt.
semp
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Latrobe on July 24, 2016, 04:09:24 PM
A lone destroyer is also hard to spot as you have the ENTIRE OCEAN to sail in.
I still don't see any difference between gvs/planes/and boats
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: RagingPineapple on July 24, 2016, 04:10:45 PM
You are COMPLETELY missing the point Latrobe is trying to make. He's saying that because a lone ship will get picked off easy, like a lone bomber or fighter, players would be likely to stick together and use teamwork. Apparently that's a concept you are unfamiliar with.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: guncrasher on July 24, 2016, 07:45:48 PM
You are COMPLETELY missing the point Latrobe is trying to make. He's saying that because a lone ship will get picked off easy, like a lone bomber or fighter, players would be likely to stick together and use teamwork. Apparently that's a concept you are unfamiliar with.
as a guy that sinks cv's at will, trust me nobody will be on that lonely destroyer to stop me.
semp
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Latrobe on July 24, 2016, 07:59:36 PM
Semp is a legend in his own mind, you are going to get better results smashing your face against a brick wall.
earlier I sank a cv. flew right past an f4u and an f6f. I was at 6k the f4u was higher than me. dropped my bombs and headed for the deck. only time I was attacked was when they thought I was trying to land. got one of the fighters and lost a drone. was able to land at a different base.
if you think people are going to team up to defend a lonely destroyer think again. they dont team up to defend a cv as of now. currently the only way I wont sink a cv is if I make a mistake and miss. I am not worried about fighter cover as normally they wont bother with me.
semp
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Latrobe on July 25, 2016, 11:36:43 AM
We all knowindows10 just how deadly a manned 5" gun can be. Anything that gets within 8K of one is instantly deleted from the skies. A Fletcher has 5 of these guns (as well as some lethal 40mms). ONE Destroyer would be pretty scary to attack with those 5" guns and it's ability to maneuver better than a task group and avoid attacks. Imagine a couple of these death machines sticking together!
I think a destroyer would do just fine in the AH world. :cool:
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Coalcat1 on July 25, 2016, 12:27:29 PM
I honestly don't get why people have such a huge problem with player controlled ships. If you wont use them and they will be so easy to kill in the words of Bustr and Semp, whats the issue? And the reason you can kill CVs so easily is because there are so few people to contest you in aircraft or manned guns.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Dragon Tamer on July 25, 2016, 12:28:10 PM
I honestly don't get why people have such a huge problem with player controlled ships. If you wont use them and they will be so easy to kill in the words of Bustr and Semp, whats the issue? And the reason you can kill CVs so easily is because there are so few people to contest you in aircraft or manned guns.
I didnt start killing cvs last week. been doing it since I joined the game. back when there were 600 players online I would sink cv's just as easy as it is now.
semp
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Latrobe on July 25, 2016, 03:18:00 PM
It's so easy to kill CVs because there are no player controlled destroyers roaming around to give early warning and kill anything that tries to get close to the CV.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Hungry on July 25, 2016, 03:20:51 PM
It's so easy to kill CVs because there are no player controlled destroyers roaming around to give early warning and kill anything that tries to get close to the CV.
I think I just heard Richard Dawson shout out "Good Answer lets check the board!!"
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Lusche on July 25, 2016, 03:21:35 PM
It's so easy to kill CVs because there are no player controlled destroyers roaming around to give early warning and kill anything that tries to get close to the CV.
Actually planes could do that more effectively right now. And when you can't get players flying cap over a CV, I doubt it's easier to get to get players driving pickets far out, with all the downsides that this has for them. :)
Don't get me wrong: I'm not against solo DDs at all. But the picket stuff like that wont happen very often.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: bustr on July 25, 2016, 03:23:00 PM
I'm amazed no one is asking for larger task forces to counter the ease which aircraft have to sinking the CV and cruiser. Or that anyone didn't suggest for strategic play reasons to increase the size of the task force to make larger support ships available as single player controlled parts of the task force.
I have wondered all of these years why Hitech didn't evolve the current task force larger. Then try out the idea of player controlled vessels that could operate inside of some large ring of influence tethered to the task force. Subs can operate in the evil under world of the arena, we did in the alpha by accident many times. Once on the surface, ppppfht to any passing kiddy with a bomb or rockets.
You could always start from a better position and ask Hitech what "his" plans are for ships over the next year. You guys still have a battleship to deal with on AH3 live day 1.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Latrobe on July 25, 2016, 03:29:49 PM
Planes create a dar bar and will let incoming enemies see where planes are patrolling for them. Destroyer would create no dar and we can have their radars kind of extend the task groups radar coverage. Incoming enemies would drop from the skies.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Lusche on July 25, 2016, 03:35:26 PM
Planes create a dar bar and will let incoming enemies see where planes are patrolling for them. Destroyer would create no dar and we can have their radars kind of extend the task groups radar coverage. Incoming enemies would drop from the skies.
If no one is in the air engaging them, it won't happen. Which is actually the reason #1 our Cvs do sink. Radar doesn't give that much advantage at all, as origin of enemy bombers can often be limited to one or two bases - and they make darbar as well.You just need to hover over the CV at sufficient altitude and you can smash about any attack, dot dar or not.
Driving pickets will be percied as much more boring than flying the planes over the enemy base. Relatively few people are interested in keeping station just to report a few dots.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Coalcat1 on July 25, 2016, 03:37:12 PM
Why do all of you only care about the air war?
#allplaystylesmatter
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Latrobe on July 25, 2016, 03:37:22 PM
You won't need anyone in planes because the lethal 5" guns and 40mms in the Fletcher will kill anything before a plane can even get to them :)
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Dragon Tamer on July 25, 2016, 03:37:51 PM
I'm amazed no one is asking for larger task forces to counter the ease which aircraft have to sinking the CV and cruiser. Or that anyone didn't suggest for strategic play reasons to increase the size of the task force to make larger support ships available as single player controlled parts of the task force.
I have wondered all of these years why Hitech didn't evolve the current task force larger. Then try out the idea of player controlled vessels that could operate inside of some large ring of influence tethered to the task force. Subs can operate in the evil under world of the arena, we did in the alpha by accident many times. Once on the surface, ppppfht to any passing kiddy with a bomb or rockets.
You could always start from a better position and ask Hitech what "his" plans are for ships over the next year. You guys still have a battleship to deal with on AH3 live day 1.
Windows 10
You are asking for a larger task group in a thread where we are discussing individual cruisers. If you want to request larger task groups then make a new thread, don't try to hijack this one.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Coalcat1 on July 25, 2016, 03:38:08 PM
You won't need anyone in planes because the lethal 5" guns and 40mms in the Fletcher will kill anything before a plane can even get to them :)
You'd need to have the enemy coming right over your boat for that. If you're lucky it will happen once or twice. Pass that picket at 3 miles distance and it won't happen at all.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Coalcat1 on July 25, 2016, 03:40:18 PM
So Bustr, do you work for HTC now?
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Latrobe on July 25, 2016, 03:40:32 PM
The Fletcher is very fast and can chase them down.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Lusche on July 25, 2016, 03:40:56 PM
sigh
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: 68EZPkns on July 25, 2016, 03:55:05 PM
I'm amazed no one is asking for larger task forces to counter the ease which aircraft have to sinking the CV and cruiser. Or that anyone didn't suggest for strategic play reasons to increase the size of the task force to make larger support ships available as single player controlled parts of the task force.
I have wondered all of these years why Hitech didn't evolve the current task force larger. Then try out the idea of player controlled vessels that could operate inside of some large ring of influence tethered to the task force. Subs can operate in the evil under world of the arena, we did in the alpha by accident many times. Once on the surface, ppppfht to any passing kiddy with a bomb or rockets.
You could always start from a better position and ask Hitech what "his" plans are for ships over the next year. You guys still have a battleship to deal with on AH3 live day 1.
Thats why I suggested the Atlanta class Light Cruiser to escort the CV TF. It was a AAA cruiser. Designed for anti-air.
You are asking for a larger task group in a thread where we are discussing individual cruisers. If you want to request larger task groups then make a new thread, don't try to hijack this one.
Hmmm, I thought this post was about individual destroyers.....
Most of you don't want to see past your index finger when you want something in the Wish List forum.
So most of you never ask why Hitech has never granted this kind of wish the other times it's been asked that I can remember in 15 years. Yes he said he would like to put in subs someday. I've never read anyone trying to understand why Hitech chose the large group model called a task group in his version of a water war. Instead of working forward from the single player single ship model back in the day. He has a rational which he hasn't appeared to change even until AH3 with a new capitol ship. Which will be the center of a new task force from what I could tell when I had to test the thing. It candles just like the CV when hit.
So this wish is like the old wishes spit balling wanting perked extras for your airplane. So now you want the task force deconstructed without even knowing why the task force was created in the first place and getting an upgrade in AH3 with a battleship. Who is going to defend this tiny thing from a kiddy with two 1000lb bombs who will tell his country on range where to find you all alone? By yourself you cannot even defend a task force from being sunk the way our game world works.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Latrobe on July 25, 2016, 08:25:35 PM
So we are getting subs! Nice! I think we should focus on Destroyers first.
windows10
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Dragon Tamer on July 25, 2016, 09:06:51 PM
So most of you never ask why Hitech has never granted this kind of wish the other times it's been asked that I can remember in 15 years. Yes he said he would like to put in subs someday. I've never read anyone trying to understand why Hitech chose the large group model called a task group in his version of a water war. Instead of working forward from the single player single ship model back in the day. He has a rational which he hasn't appeared to change even until AH3 with a new capitol ship. Which will be the center of a new task force from what I could tell when I had to test the thing. It candles just like the CV when hit.
So this wish is like the old wishes spit balling wanting perked extras for your airplane. So now you want the task force deconstructed without even knowing why the task force was created in the first place and getting an upgrade in AH3 with a battleship. Who is going to defend this tiny thing from a kiddy with two 1000lb bombs who will tell his country on range where to find you all alone? By yourself you cannot even defend a task force from being sunk the way our game world works.
Windows 10
Kiddy?
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: bustr on July 25, 2016, 09:43:34 PM
Usually in real life when a face to face conversation reaches this point with a shifting left and right of the questions like you have just taken. Things like calling a person some popular form of the current description for a hater with an ist attached happens to cover up not having or wanting to work on answers. It was obvious you also want single player control of the cruiser by your divergence from the word destroyer. The wish has happened in the past for control of the cruiser and we still only have the task group. And potentially a new task group built around a battleship.
A submarine is a shoe in to be a single player object for how they operated. The task force provides mutual support against aircraft just like the AI ack, manned ack , mobile ack and fighters do for an airfield. In WW2 single destroyers were sent to places with a very small chance of getting attacked by air. Destroyers were massed in task forces because air attacks were expected along with screening for submarines. Our whole arena system is populated with players toting 1000lb bombs looking to destroy things. A lone destroyer won't last long once spotted if the game is changed for object control in that manner. Then players will know to no longer ignore the support ships like most do today because they will disappear soon for the task force re-spawn. For the most part after sinking the cruiser and CV, we ignore the destroyers. Some players when bored sink them too and they go to the bottom faster than the two capitol ships.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Latrobe on July 25, 2016, 09:53:18 PM
I see what you're getting at bustr. Submarines are a shoe in but they hunted in wolfpacks. So all we need to do is add destroyers and hunt in wolfpacks too. Nice idea! :aok
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: RagingPineapple on July 25, 2016, 10:16:33 PM
I hope that I don't get as hard headed and obstinate when I'm old like you guys, jeez.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Dragon Tamer on July 25, 2016, 10:20:07 PM
It was obvious you also want single player control of the cruiser by your divergence from the word destroyer.
Windows 10
Shows what you know, I haven't played the game in over a year and I have no intention of coming back. In case you haven't heard DCS is getting the P-47.
You were just being narrow minded and bullying others for their creative ideas because you didn't like them so I decided to call you out on it as it should have been done sooner. It seems to be a recurring trend with you. Bending over for HTC sure has it's perks when it comes to forum leniency huh?
I wasn't calling you calling you a hater, I was calling you many other things but never hater.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: 68EZPkns on July 26, 2016, 08:37:01 AM
I can wish for whatever i want, if you dont like it start your own thread.Yes I would love player controlled ships of all types but DDs would be a nice start.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: LCADolby on July 26, 2016, 12:14:32 PM
I see what you're getting at bustr. Submarines are a shoe in but they hunted in wolfpacks. So all we need to do is add destroyers and hunt in wolfpacks too. Nice idea! :aok
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: bustr on July 26, 2016, 12:49:48 PM
When we were in the closed alpha, we had months where our vehicles would fall through into the underworld in different random spots. The underworld is water with land floating on top. You could sit there in your M3, often upside down, and realize it could be skinned like a sub and you would believe you were in a submarine.
I think it is still possible if you go into the new town in the beta and drive your vehicle into one of the ponds. Not sure if Hitech fixed it for those ponds yet. You can also try offline with the beta CraterMA spawning a GV on the CV deck and driving off. I tested it a few patches ago to see what would happen when my GV dropped 20ft into water off the road in the town.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: 68EZPkns on July 26, 2016, 01:11:44 PM
Another job the DDs had was laying smoke screens. If you wanted to tag along with a TF you could scout out ahead and look for enemy fleets or PTs and DDs. Laying smoke screens was common practice for DDs when confronted with bigger ships. Also Fletcher class DDs had radar. They were used to create a picket line around the CVs watching for Kamakazis.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Sabre on July 28, 2016, 05:16:07 PM
Adding the ability to spawn a DD to the game today would be relatively easy. Use the code for the PT boat, with changes to the parameters that control its behavior within the physics engine. Aiming the torps would be a little more challenging without the addition of some sort of torpedo aiming optics or TDC, but our player base seems to be very adept at adapting to such challenges. So, from a technical viewpoint, it's entirely do-able. Assertions have been made that it would be too vulnerable to air attack, and that it would take too long to get where it's needed, given the current game environment. Interestingly enough, I recall the biggest objections to this idea in the past was that player control-able DDs would be too powerful, rather than them being too vulnerable. Imagine the impact if a half-dozen players at a port upped DDs right at the doc. So, clearly availability would have to be limited, somehow. Taking each of these in turn...
Survivability – Three primary factors are at work here: Toughness, agility, and defensive firepower. While it’s true that one skilled player with a couple 1k lb bombs can easily sink the DDs escorting the fleet, it’s still way more durable than a PT. Strafing one to death would take a lot more ammo, and multiple runs, increasing the likelihood that defensive fire would take down the attacker. Now, a player controlled DD would not simply plod along in a straight line at constant speed. Level bombing would be much more unlikely to be affective against a maneuvering DD. Dive bombing would be your best bet, but not all players are that skilled at it, particularly when the target is zigging and zagging at high speed. Add to that the high volume of defensive fire, and I don’t believe it would be all that easy for your average player to get bomb hits. Even then, it would still take more than a single 1k lb bomb to sink one. Plus, with the 5-in guns firing in AA mode, an aircraft has to fight through proximity-fused AAA for several miles just to get close enough to make an attack. So, a single attacker is by no means guaranteed to succeed.
Transit Time – Even at a DDs max speed, which is not much higher than the CV fleets travel at, there are some maps where it would take considerable time to get from one place to another. The Obvious answer, without major code work required, are spawn points, same as we have for PTs. Another idea would be to create a new type of fleet we’ll call a Destroyer Squadron (DS). This is similar to idea HiTech has floated (pun intended) for submarine ops, i.e. a moving fleet type called the “Wolfpack”, which could be directed around the map just like a fleet, and would act as a spawn point for subs. In the case of a DS, it would be represented by 4 to six destroyers (so it can be targeted and destroyed, just like the CV fleets), which would be able to spawn only DDs, PTs and perhaps LVTs. It would have its own auto defensive fire capability (i.e. auto-ack).
Uber Boat – Let’s face it…a Fletcher class DD has a lot of fire power for a player controlled unit, and could unbalance the game in certain scenarios. Nerf it too much, and it becomes useless, on the other hand. One obvious way to restrict its use is by perking it (what else do you have to spend boat perks on). If you could also earn perks by manning ship guns, those could then be used to grab a DD. Another idea (requiring code changes) would be to limit the number available to each country; once one is sunk, a “cool-down” period of, say 10 minutes, would have to pass before it could re-spawn.
Just some thoughts on how this might fit into our game world…
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: 68EZPkns on July 29, 2016, 01:07:20 PM
Adding the ability to spawn a DD to the game today would be relatively easy. Use the code for the PT boat, with changes to the parameters that control its behavior within the physics engine. Aiming the torps would be a little more challenging without the addition of some sort of torpedo aiming optics or TDC, but our player base seems to be very adept at adapting to such challenges. So, from a technical viewpoint, it's entirely do-able. Assertions have been made that it would be too vulnerable to air attack, and that it would take too long to get where it's needed, given the current game environment. Interestingly enough, I recall the biggest objections to this idea in the past was that player control-able DDs would be too powerful, rather than them being too vulnerable. Imagine the impact if a half-dozen players at a port upped DDs right at the doc. So, clearly availability would have to be limited, somehow. Taking each of these in turn...
Survivability – Three primary factors are at work here: Toughness, agility, and defensive firepower. While it’s true that one skilled player with a couple 1k lb bombs can easily sink the DDs escorting the fleet, it’s still way more durable than a PT. Strafing one to death would take a lot more ammo, and multiple runs, increasing the likelihood that defensive fire would take down the attacker. Now, a player controlled DD would not simply plod along in a straight line at constant speed. Level bombing would be much more unlikely to be affective against a maneuvering DD. Dive bombing would be your best bet, but not all players are that skilled at it, particularly when the target is zigging and zagging at high speed. Add to that the high volume of defensive fire, and I don’t believe it would be all that easy for your average player to get bomb hits. Even then, it would still take more than a single 1k lb bomb to sink one. Plus, with the 5-in guns firing in AA mode, an aircraft has to fight through proximity-fused AAA for several miles just to get close enough to make an attack. So, a single attacker is by no means guaranteed to succeed.
Transit Time – Even at a DDs max speed, which is not much higher than the CV fleets travel at, there are some maps where it would take considerable time to get from one place to another. The Obvious answer, without major code work required, are spawn points, same as we have for PTs. Another idea would be to create a new type of fleet we’ll call a Destroyer Squadron (DS). This is similar to idea HiTech has floated (pun intended) for submarine ops, i.e. a moving fleet type called the “Wolfpack”, which could be directed around the map just like a fleet, and would act as a spawn point for subs. In the case of a DS, it would be represented by 4 to six destroyers (so it can be targeted and destroyed, just like the CV fleets), which would be able to spawn only DDs, PTs and perhaps LVTs. It would have its own auto defensive fire capability (i.e. auto-ack).
Uber Boat – Let’s face it…a Fletcher class DD has a lot of fire power for a player controlled unit, and could unbalance the game in certain scenarios. Nerf it too much, and it becomes useless, on the other hand. One obvious way to restrict its use is by perking it (what else do you have to spend boat perks on). If you could also earn perks by manning ship guns, those could then be used to grab a DD. Another idea (requiring code changes) would be to limit the number available to each country; once one is sunk, a “cool-down” period of, say 10 minutes, would have to pass before it could re-spawn.
Just some thoughts on how this might fit into our game world…
Nice post! +100, hopefully one day we will get player controlled ships.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Sabre on August 02, 2016, 12:55:29 PM
Nice post! +100, hopefully one day we will get player controlled ships.
Thanks, 68EXPkns. I hope so, too. Used to play a table-top wargame called "Battlewagon". Always thought it would be fun to do something similar within AH.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Mister Fork on August 02, 2016, 07:12:29 PM
Please excuse Fork. He is an Epsilon-minus semi-moron, who of course cannot grasp the overall concepts of this game. No matter how many years he spends here, no matter how much time he has devoted as a staff member, he simply is incapable of understanding the basic functions of tactics and strategy, not to mention how things like boats could work in this game. I apologize on his behalf, and I will try to ensure that his wife gives him his shot before she lets him near the computer from now on.
- oldman
hey, hey. OM. Hey. (hic) I never mix my shoes with my ford posting, (hic) I mean my food and shoes sorting, (hic), I mean my booze and forum (hic) postings. Yeah. That.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Chilli on August 03, 2016, 03:09:03 PM
Fork that's a classic :rofl You were a little rough on Oldman though, I thought he was quite capable of understanding the more you twist the rubber band, the faster and longer the propellor spins.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: 68EZPkns on August 04, 2016, 01:16:51 PM
I used to have a game called "Great Naval Battles of the Pacific" by SSI. Loved it.
Title: Re: Control of a destroyer
Post by: Sabre on August 05, 2016, 10:46:48 AM
Yeah, do believe I recall that game, too, 68EXPkns.